^i agree but only for european royal houses!!! Great Britain, Spain and Monaco could get rid of Male primogeniture, and Luxembourg and Liechenstein could get rid of the Salic law.

however, countries like Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Brunei and many more its better for them to have the Salic Law, to avoid wars and problems on sucession. on countries where females dont have that privilagies how they can have a Queen ruler? dont get me wrong, i would love to see a women on their thrones, but it would make many issues and dangerous problems.

still, Japan needs to get rid of the Salic Law, and allow Aiko to be Empress. i think this one is my top 1 for changing the constitution. its quite unfair!!

__________________

__________________♫A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams.♥

You actually raise a very good point as to why the Europeans probably shouldn't change - the increasing number of people from the Middle East moving to Western Europe and demanding to keep their own cultures and laws - especially with regard to women - means that having a woman as the monarch in some of these countries could be a problem in the future. Many of the new migrants to Europe are from the nations you identify as not needing to change to equal primogeniture because of their views on women but as this group will probably form a sizeable minority, if not a small majority in say Britain by the time William's eldest child is succeeding to the throne then taking that issue into account should also be influencing the decision makers.

I don't get this- the 3 best sovereigns (or at least among the best) England has ever had were women- Elizabeth I, Victoria and Elizabeth II so why would anyone afraid of another woman sovereign? Or assume she wouldnt be as ''good'' as a boy? Also the English Queen currently is a women and seems to me no other countries (regardless of their view on women) appear to have an issue respecting her and her position....just my opinions on this subject......

Immigrants need to respect their chosen adopted country's culture, including learning the local language. Who cares about what these immigrants want - I could care less. Equal primogeniture should be implemented in the European countries whose native population votes in favor of it. If immigrants are anti-equal primogeniture, they can chose to live elsewhere. What about that statement is so hard for immigrants to understand? Iluvbertie, I cannot believe you had the audacity to post your entry above! I do not understand where you are coming from at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathia_sophia

^i agree but only for european royal houses!!! Great Britain, Spain and Monaco could get rid of Male primogeniture, and Luxembourg and Liechenstein could get rid of the Salic law.

however, countries like Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Brunei and many more its better for them to have the Salic Law, to avoid wars and problems on sucession. on countries where females dont have that privilagies how they can have a Queen ruler? dont get me wrong, i would love to see a women on their thrones, but it would make many issues and dangerous problems.

still, Japan needs to get rid of the Salic Law, and allow Aiko to be Empress. i think this one is my top 1 for changing the constitution. its quite unfair!!

I know you meant well by writing you post, but you cannot have it every which way! Maybe you could work as a consultant to these respective governments to make sure your specifications are met! ;-D

Immigrants need to respect their chosen adopted country's culture, including learning the local language. Who cares about what these immigrants want - I could care less. Equal primogeniture should be implemented in the European countries whose native population votes in favor of it. If immigrants are anti-equal primogeniture, they can chose to live elsewhere. What about that statement is so hard for immigrants to understand? Iluvbertie, I cannot believe you had the audacity to post your entry above! I do not understand where you are coming from at all.

I was coming from the point of view that in 50 or 100 years the majority in many countries will be very different to what it is now and thus what is the culture and language of those countries could be very different.

In Australia we have a policy of multiculturalism so all cultures are welcome and able to follow their own beliefs and practices. Many don't learn English and the government etc acknowledge that in many ways e.g. multilingual notices from the government. Where I lived a couple of years ago - the most multicultural local council area in Australia it was perfectly possible to walk the streets without seeing a sign in English. The last time I was in Britain there were also areas there that were the same - where English was the foreign language.

So as these groups become more sizeable then their views will have to be taken into account - just as the Anglo-Saxons had to accept the Norman ideas when they were conquered or the Native Americans and Indigenous Australians have had to come to terms with the new majority in their countries so the Europeans might have to deal with the increasing numbers from the Middle East and Asia - particularly of the Islamic faith - the fastest growing religion in the world.

My point therefore is that if it is clear that in a generation or two generations the majority, or at least a very large minority, are going to have a problem with gender blind succession and thus lead to a coming back to the way it is now why change it?

That would be a shame. I respect all different cultures (I live in one of the most mixed countries there is) but I go w/ the saying "If you come to my house, you play by my rules".
The thing is, of course in regards to Britain, as much as we can predict a change in it's current "face", I don't see it changing this drastically in the next 5 years (which is when I predict William and Catherine would have their first child) so in the case of a girl being the first born that would naturally push the matter forward.
I don't thing the tricky part will be inside the UK, but more so, as explained before by other members, with Commonwealth nations. How to deal with that will prove to be the real challenge.

__________________There's not much of a difference between a stadium full of cheering fans and an angry crowd screaming abuse at you. They're both just making a lot of noise. How you take it is up to you. Convince yourself they're cheering for you. You do that, and someday, they will - Sue S.

I don't know; I can see the appeal of equal primogeniture because offhand it sounds more fair, but I fear the end result would be massive lawsuits!
After all, why should the eldest child inherit at all? Why not the smartest, or the favorite? Why not draw lots and the winner takes all?
You see my drift?
I actually think the change would be more trouble than it's worth.

I was wondering whether, in countries with equal primogeniture like Sweden, do all titles now devolve onto the eldest child? Or is that limited to the Monarchy?

I was wondering whether, in countries with equal primogeniture like Sweden, do all titles now devolve onto the eldest child? Or is that limited to the Monarchy?

In Sweden it seems only limited to the Royal Family, since the 1980 reform was made to the Swedish Act of Succession. The reform states that the eldest child of the monarch, regardless of sex, is the first in line of succession. I don't think this applies to Swedish nobility.. but then their nobility is quite different from British nobility, so I cannot say for sure just what their rules of succession are/have been.

As for other countries with equal primogeniture - Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Denmark and now Luxembourg - they deserve closer inspection as to the structure and application of the provisions.

I know that the change applies only to the royal succession in Denmark, and like Sweden, it doesn't seem to change whatever succession is in place for the nobility.

But the King of Spain did change the succession of the Spanish nobility to equal primogeniture in 2006, but this change apparently does not apply to the royal family. It should be noted that the change is only applied when the order of succession to the Spanish title is not specified in the letters patent of the title's creation.

__________________Ś i vethed...nā i onnad. Minlū pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")

The trouble with tinkering about with the Constitution is that it raises issues of equality, which carried to the logical conclusion, makes one question whether there should be a monarchy anyway..........

And with the UK in dire staits at the moment, I would hope that Prime Minister Cameron could find better things to do with his time.........with a rise in unemployment yet again and people's living standards continually under attack, with a National Health Service unable to cope with the demands on it and an increasing sick and poor elderly population, I think that DC has enough on his plate already..........

We've had a huge amount of Constitutional change in the last few years in the UK; we need time to first absorb all these changes.....

It could also cause problems in the Commonwealth, opening up a wider debate on the continuation of the monarchy which may not be welcome. In some of these nations, such as Australia and NZ, there is already talk of a republic and in others like Canada the monarchy survives in part because it is ignored on a day to day basis and only becomes real when the monarch or member of the family is visiting. Other than that people dont really think about it.

I think like other PMs Mr cameron talks about the monarchy to take attention away from more serious issues.
Hopefully the Cambridges first born will be a son and the discussion will be put off again.

While I can see the point, I don't think they should keep putting off the issue. Regardless of a change in the Constitution, certain countries are going to become republics eventually anyway. Besides that fact, I think it's an issue that has been put off long enough. They need to fix it. In America, whenever the President is visibly fixing whatever everyone has on their minds, it's the same thing. There's always a this can wait attitude. Besides that fact, just because he starts working on other things as well it doesn't mean he isn't working on the other things going on with the country. So, I think it's a good idea. I want everything to get better too, but I don't want to push pther issues off the table that are of importance too.

Its not exacty a pressing issue, not even a necessary one to secure the succession. Not everyone in the UK will be in favor of the proposed change, some people will see no reason to change tradition to be politically correct.

The trouble with tinkering about with the Constitution is that it raises issues of equality, which carried to the logical conclusion, makes one question whether there should be a monarchy anyway..........

Alex

This is what I think that those in the media and chattering class in the UK who are currently argueing for equal prig. are really after. When I read articles in papers from people who have expressed in the past that they want a repub;ic, saying that the monarchy should allow equal succession for women, I think that they are being very hypocritacl and manipulative.
One thing to consider is this. IN the past two hundred years, how many of those years have we had a Queen, and how many a female Prime Minister?

Of course this isn't just a British matter anyway and will also need legislation in the other 16 realms (it may even need a referendum in some of them).

This could even see a situation where the thrones separate - e.g. if the legislation hasn't passed in say Australia at the time that William, Charles and the Queen die and William has a daughter and then a son (I know hard to imagine but so many things do happen that are hard to imagine) then the daughter would inherit Britain but the son Australia.